Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

The fact that many of you assume that the Chinese targeting systems won't be addressed, in the event that hostilities look imminent, is a curiosity. We're not waiting till such time, to map out their electronic order of battle. You're also still giving a lot of credit to the unproven ASBM capability, even assuming the ISR systems remain unmolested. It's a much bigger challenge to hit a 35+ knot target at 1000nm, that you have to find first, than a stationary target at 200nm, with known coordinates.

F-16.net Sponsor

Interesting discussion all around. For those of you who haven't read the article by Marshall Hoyler out of the Naval War College Review in 2010, I think you would find it discusses the USN ABM assets in great detail. He essentially argues against the US going toe to toe with China in regards to active defense in regards to ABMs. Essentially, the US through other responsibilities around the globe, the current and projected supply of ABMs, and the limited number that can even fit on cruisers that would be deployed to any future arena, would not have the shear number of ABMs needed to counter what the Chinese could throw at us. (This includes DF-21's at our carriers and CSS-6's at fixed bases [Link pending approval] Kadena). Given this sobering fact, what options do we have? Are we willing to wager one of our supercarriers on their "unproven" technology?

I disagree with the idea that China would tip any of these with a nuclear warhead. If hostilities arose, in my option, the Chinese goal would be to engage the US in a quick and limited conflict whether it be Taiwan or the South China Sea (Maybe both). This would play into China's immediate strengths and allow then to achieve their goals without a need to escalate/expand the conflict beyond those boundaries. Based on what I have read, the Chinese historically have regarded preemptive strike as a defensive and not offensive measure providing then with the "moral" ground to strike first (the Korean War for example). Making a calculated guess that the US as a whole would not want to get into a very drawn out conflict also plays into their hand of keeping it to a quick and limited engagement. Who knows if the DF-21 can sink a carrier. The fact is they have already achieved the psychological effect of the weapon given that we are obviously taking it very seriously, even in the civilian press. Of course there is nothing wrong with the US being prepared, but it does have the potential of changing US strategy and limiting the USN ability to maximize its effect on any Chinese aggression which would again play into their hands. In this regard, the US would have a difficult decision to make. How far are we willing to go and what are we willing to lose to protect Taiwan and keep open the South China Sea? Are we willing to wager a carrier battle group or more if this thing is as effective as they would hope us to believe. If we are not even willing to accept a loss of a carrier, then the Chinese have won the battle without a shot even being fired.

Would our limited number of F22's be ready to go? Do we have enough? Could last minute treaties be signed allowing us to forward deploy them to the Phillippines, When would the F35 be ready? Is this a timeline that the Chinese are keeping in mind?

Actually, the DF-21 seems more like a deterrent than any real intent to win a war. If China actually sank a US carrier, it would escalate any conflict into all out war, and that is something China knows it can't win. China want's to put up a strong front to keep the US out of it's business in peace time.

I found an interesting article about chinese missiles, what do you guys think.

Link:http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/07/china-plan-to-beat-u-s/

I think it is a good article. I would love to find the time to read the book on Chinese airpower he quotes. I think the "saturation" strategy he describes is a very viable one. That is also why a strategy of shooting down every ASBM/cruise missile the chinese send at us may not be realistic. We just may not have enough missiles (ala "Independence Day")

I think that those who dismiss the dangerous instability that the DF-21 introduces to the nuclear component are not thinking things all the way through. If China starts lobbing missiles in the direction of Hawaii or Guam there is a good chance that such things are misunderstood. Even if that does not happen lets assume that they successfully develop these weapons.

What happens when the US response is conventional ICBM's and IRBM's of their own? Now both sides can get the wrong idea really fast. Say the US fires a prompt global strike weapon from an ICBM booster at a DF-21 it located near Bejing? Are they shooting at the vehicle they located or is it a decapitation strike with a nuclear payload? Does China have a command and control system robust enough to survive such a hypothetical strike? Can they afford to wait it out knowing that it probably is not a nuke?

I agree with those that say there are practical problems for these type of weapons on many levels. I also think that the potential of things getting out of control if someone ripple fires a few dozen of these in the general direction of ones enemy is badly underestimated.

Can't the U.S. just jam chinese satellites and shot down any chinese aircraft that might give away the carriers position?

I don't see the ASBM as much of a threat as it is put out to be, with proper tactics the U.S. navy can find a way around it. I think the chinese are just trying to scare us with there super weapon that can defeat the U.S. symbol of power.

All the more reason to aggressively fund laser and other DEW research. The current and projected enhancements to the kinetic interceptor paradigm will simply buy time until the new tech is feasible and negates the quantitative advantage of the offensive threat.

g3143 wrote:

Can't the U.S. just jam chinese satellites and shot down any chinese aircraft that might give away the carriers position?

I don't see the ASBM as much of a threat as it is put out to be, with proper tactics the U.S. navy can find a way around it. I think the chinese are just trying to scare us with there super weapon that can defeat the U.S. symbol of power.

Satellite links *can in theory* be jammed, but that requires substantial assets that may be better-used elsewhere. If you shoot down an enemy aircraft, there's a very good chance the PRC will have a reasonable idea of where the carrier is based on where contact was lost with/a distress call was received from whatever aircraft was shot down.

Time for the navy to re-invent the battleship with YAL-1 class lasers and 32+MJ railguns.

...a phased plasma rifle in the forty watt range.
hey, just what you see pal...

I see your Plasma rifle, and raise you one Meson cannon..

"Intervening terrain!, What intervening terrain?"

jeff929 wrote:

I think it is a good article. I would love to find the time to read the book on Chinese airpower he quotes. I think the "saturation" strategy he describes is a very viable one. That is also why a strategy of shooting down every ASBM/cruise missile the chinese send at us may not be realistic. We just may not have enough missiles (ala "Independence Day")

Historically the US has tended to strike at the centres of gravity to any adversary in a "hot" war - the idea of a US carrier group sitting around, hoping for the best and doing it's best to avoid being sunk seems unrealistic. I suspect that the kill chain for Dong Feng can be disrupted at several key points, such as ground stations, which will require antennae which can't be armoured.

I'd expect those to get a pasting, put it that way. The key would be in turning off the attack, not riding it out indefinitely.

SpudmanWP wrote:

I see your Plasma rifle, and raise you one Meson cannon..

"Intervening terrain!, What intervening terrain?"

OoooK, that's enough caffeine for you Spud Laughing

stobiewan wrote:

jeff929 wrote:

I think it is a good article. I would love to find the time to read the book on Chinese airpower he quotes. I think the "saturation" strategy he describes is a very viable one. That is also why a strategy of shooting down every ASBM/cruise missile the chinese send at us may not be realistic. We just may not have enough missiles (ala "Independence Day")

Historically the US has tended to strike at the centres of gravity to any adversary in a "hot" war - the idea of a US carrier group sitting around, hoping for the best and doing it's best to avoid being sunk seems unrealistic. I suspect that the kill chain for Dong Feng can be disrupted at several key points, such as ground stations, which will require antennae which can't be armoured.

I'd expect those to get a pasting, put it that way. The key would be in turning off the attack, not riding it out indefinitely.

How? How do you reach those antennas which, like the OTH radar facilities, will be hundreds of miles inland. The ground stations are the Chinese C&C centers, the TELs are all highly mobile trucks! What are you suggesting, submarine launched cruise missiles targeted using real time satellite fixes to kill part of the Chinese c&c structure and as many of the tels as you can find? Then the CG races in to launching range of the coast? I'll tell you right now how that's going to end, and it won't be pretty.

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

F-35: Super Hornet hedge